Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @03:27PM
from the taking-applications-for-digital-houdini dept.

jrepin points out a discussion with Richard Stallman in which he talks about how the Free Software movement is faring in light of companies that have been successful in the long term with very different principles, like Microsoft and Apple. Stallman had this to say:
"I would say the free software movement has gone about half the distance it has to travel. We managed to make a mass community but we still have a long way to go to liberate computer users. Those companies are very powerful. They are cleverly finding new ways to take control over users. ... The most widely used non-free programs have malicious features – and I’m talking about specific, known malicious features. ... There are three kinds: those that spy on the user, those that restrict the user, and back doors. Windows has all three. Microsoft can install software changes without asking permission. Flash Player has malicious features, as do most mobile phones. Digital handcuffs are the most common malicious features. They restrict what you can do with the data in your own computer. Apple certainly has the digital handcuffs that are the tightest in history. The i-things, well, people found two spy features and Apple says it removed them and there might be more. When people don’t know about this issue they choose based on immediate convenience and nothing else. And therefore they can be herded into giving up their freedom by a combination of convenient features, pressure from institutions and the network effect."

Wow, that video started making me nauseous - and THEN I saw what you were talking about! Best comment: "Stallman only obtains his food from open sores."

Still - don't take someone's opinion less seriously because they are physically disgusting. Take them less seriously because they are pompous, arrogant, and have no interest in listening to anyone else's point of view on a subject.

Though to be honest, I actually mostly agree with his comments on Apple's "handcuffs", at least. Though I don't think telling

It's not just physically disgusting, it's borderline insane. The entire point of taking someone like RMS's opinion is based on the assumption that he's more informed than the average person, has dedicated more thought to it, and has come to rational conclusions.

I have always had serious trouble with the "rational" part of that in regards to Stallman, and the foot-eating thing only reinforces that. Basic disagreements with his philosophy (in particular the extremist elements of it, the basic idea that software should be free I agree with but we live in a concrete world and our philosophical models aren't perfect so you need to be flexible) aside, I have a real problem delegating any thought at all to someone so unaware or uncaring of social norms.

While I agree that someone can still be brilliant but completely socially backward, you are equating chewing your fingernails with sitting down in a large lecture, taking your shoe and sock off, picking something off of your foot, and visibly munching down on it.

Biting his fingernails in front of a crowd would be a pretty bad habit. Picking his nose and eating it in front of the crowd (which I'm not sure he wasn't doing earlier in the video, anyway) is very "socially backward". Taking off his shoe and eating his own toenails (or whatever it was) on camera in the middle of hundreds of people is getting pretty borderline. I wouldn't go as far as saying borderline insane, but borderline dementia or some other mental disturbance, possibly...

But even if I did, I can recognize that there's a large difference between doing either of those things in private, and eating something you just picked off of your foot while not only in public, but while being recorded, in front of an audience. That's the borderline insane part. Any normal person would immediately be aware of the consequences, and have the self-control to not do it, even if they were gross enough to want to. If you can't see the difference, you should be aware that most people can, and the other responses of disgust you can find in this thread are on the low end of the spectrum of reactions you'd get if you showed this video to people outside the Slashdot community.

For histronics, you should probably take a second look at your own post.

"That's the borderline insane part. " i don't think it's insanity..is a simple failure to recognize social norms. think about what you do in your car (dig for gold) at a stoplight. you forget you are in a little glass box where everyone can see you.

i've seen women applying makeup, men shaving, people flossing.. BUT those same people (hopefully) don't do that at the fucking dinner table.. RMS is just in his car ALL THE TIME.

brilliant guy, but the social graces of a mountain fucking gorilla...

have you seen his requirements for a personal appearance? I don't think the biggest Hollywood diva's get this specific:

"Above 72 fahrenheit (22 centigrade) I find sleeping quite difficult. (If the air is dry, I can stand 23 degrees.) A little above that temperature, a strong electric fan blowing on me enables me to sleep. More than 3 degrees above that temperature, I need air conditioning to sleep."

tea: "A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea Ireally like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar,any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if weuse my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar....if he brings his own tea all the time, WTF milk and sugar? if he brings his tea with him, why even mention this?

audio: It is best to provide audio recordings in the original recorded samplerate, up to 44100Hz. Monophonic is generally adequate for speechrecordings and saves a lot of space over stereo.

HOW to pay for his tickets? you're getting a free ticket why do you care HOW i pay for it?If you buy bus or train tickets for me, do not give my name! BigBrother has no right to know where I travel, or where you travel, orwhere anyone travels. If they arbitrarily demand a name, give a namethat does not belong to any person you know of. If they will check myID before I board the bus or train, then let's look for another wayfor me to travel. (In the US I never use long-distance trains becauseof their ID policy.)

Don't give them your name either: please pay for the ticket in cash.

hates breakfast:I do not eat breakfast. Please do not ask me any questions aboutwhat I will do breakfast. Please just do not bring it up.

don't be polite: So please don't ask me "Where do you want to eat?" or "What kind ofrestaurant do you want to go to?" I can't make an intelligentdecision without knowing the facts, and unless I am already familiarwith the city we're in, I can only get those facts from you...i can see him storming out of a room because someone asked him a friendly question.

coke vs. pepsi - sure state your preference.. but I don't give a shit WHYIf I am quite sleepy, I would like two cans or small bottles ofnon-diet Pepsi. (I dislike the taste of coke, and of all diet soda;also, there is an international boycott of the Coca Cola company forkilling union organizers in Colombia and Guatemala; seekillercoke.org.) However, if I am not very sleepy, I won't wantPepsi, because it is better if I don't drink so much sugar.

it's MY EVENT. STFU:If you plan to restrict admission to my speech, or charge a fee foradmission, please discuss this with me *personally in advance* to getmy approval for the plan. If you have imposed charges without mydirect personal approval, I may refuse to do the speech.

I'm not categorically against limiting admission or fees, butexcluding people means the speech does less good, so I want to makesure that the limitations are as small as necessary. For instance,you can allow students and low-paid people and political activists toget in free, even if professionals have to pay. We will discuss whatto do.

Another method, which works very well in some places, is to allowpeople to attend gratis but charge for a certificate of attendance.If the certificate is given by an educational institution, many willfind it useful for career advancement, while the others could entergratis. Whether this would be effective in your country is somethingyou would need to judge.

can I have your couch? are you kidding me? - I do not have the ability to maintain a sleeping environment temperature +/- 2 degreesBut please DON'T make a hotel reservation until we have fully exploredother options. If there is anyone who wants to offer a spare couch, Iwould much rather stay there than in a hotel (provided I have a door Ican close, in order to have some privacy). Staying with someone ismore fun for me than a hotel, and it would also save you money.

REALLY? would YOU stay in a place that doesn't card people?Please call the hotel and ask whether they will demand to see mypassport, and whether they report all their guests to the police. Ifit has thi

And I wouldn't listen to him either. I just don't get it, this wasn't him getting caught in some moment he thought he was off camera, whacko RMS went and DID IT ON STAGE during a fricking lecture no less! I mean how whack a doodle do you have to get before people go "You know, maybe listening to this guy isn't the brightest of ideas".

Lets face it folks the guy gets more bizarre as he goes along, he acts like a 5 year old (putting the name of a company you don't like into the language of your license? Really?) and as his munching down on toe jam on stage at a lecture shows he either doesn't have the good sense or just doesn't give a fuck about doing truly gross shit in front of God and everybody, on camera no less, so WHY does anybody listen to him?

If there HAS to be a spokesman for FOSS, you have so many other choices that actually make FOSS look intelligent, Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond just to name two and at least they aren't acting like a crazy homeless guy on camera or isn't calling what he doesn't like about a company "sins" like he's the fricking pope.

The hardware in Apple stuff doesn't trap anything that doesn't have RIAA/MPAA shackles on it (DRM), and a lot of it doesn't anymore. Just take your files and play them on anything that plays standards compliant MPEG4/H.264/AAC media.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I know other people with similar eating disorders and he may well have Pica. [wikipedia.org] Dismissing his ideas because of that is not unlike picking on the socially awkard kid who is also a genius.

If RMS were "normal" he wouldn't have had the insight and persistence that earned him universal recognition as the father of the Free software movement and a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship. If the price he pays for the genius is a little socially inappropriate behavior when he's stressed and it doesn't hurt anyone, then what's really the problem here? Sounds more like a convenient red herring than anything else.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I know other people with similar eating disorders and he may well have Pica. [wikipedia.org] Dismissing his ideas because of that is not unlike picking on the socially awkard kid who is also a genius.

If RMS were "normal" he wouldn't have had the insight and persistence that earned him universal recognition as the father of the Free software movement and a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship. If the price he pays for the genius is a little socially inappropriate behavior when he's stressed and it doesn't hurt anyone, then what's really the problem here? Sounds more like a convenient red herring than anything else.

Then Einstein must have been a moron or an idiot for not indulging in deplorable hygiene habits. After all, his genius certainly should have afforded him blowing himself in public with how abnormal his insights on Physics have been. Your argument portrays you as an enabler of his repulsive traits because you think the guy is brilliant and his social value far exceeds his personal social habits. Here is a clue: He's not. He's a guy with a Bachelor's degree in Physics. Helping to write a James Gosling free v

Most people don't really care about being free. They'd rather be safe and feel secure even if it's only an illusion.

The malware I clean up day after day is not an illusion. Freedom isn't free. It requires constant vigilance. The freedom to tinker has no value to me, and the cost in my time is absurd. I would have to be an idiot not to use a locked down device.

The malware I clean up day after day is not an illusion. Freedom isn't free. It requires constant vigilance. The freedom to tinker has no value to me, and the cost in my time is absurd. I would have to be an idiot not to use a locked down device.

And this malware you speak of is on which platform? Is it an open or closed platform? I've been using Linux for well over 15 years, and I've never, NEVER had a virus or malware on my system. I've also been using an Android phone since the original Droid which has also never had malware or a virus on it.

Perhaps its because, as they say, Linux isn't mainstream enough to become a target, but I don't think so. I think it'd due to the openness and community support of the code. No one is trying to hide the security flaws - anyone can look though the code - so they get found and fixed quickly.

There are malware on the Android platform (no more so than on ios or win moble/8/whatever it's called this week), but it's relatively new and not as polished as the rest of the Linux distros. Also a lot of venders add custom, proprietary code. Just don't click on every link you see and you'll be fine.

I've been using Linux for well over 15 years, and I've never, NEVER had a virus or malware on my system. I've also been using an Android phone since the original Droid which has also never had malware or a virus on it.

I've been using Linux for well over 15 years, and I've never, NEVER had a virus or malware on my system. I've also been using an Android phone since the original Droid which has also never had malware or a virus on it.

That you know of.

I will concede to this. Although I don't regularly scan my computers, I do keep an eye on the net traffic. Unless the malware is piggybacking itself on my regular data, nothing seems amiss. There is no traffic other than the periodic email check during my down time, and I've not noticed any data going out on any strange ports.

You have peeked my curiosity, however. I may just go find a good Linux scanner and check things out. I have two partitions I keep swapping installs back and forth on, so I have my

Can I say the same about other OSes? I'd say that depends more on how well you know the OS than differences in engineering at this point. My Windows 7 install is the same one I was running since it was released to MSDN subscribers, earlier than its general release 3 years ago. I've had to clean things up from time to time, but I know the OS well enough to clean out old Explorer add-ins and run-on-startup programs, which is the cause of 90% of the slowdowns on old Windows installs. 90% of the remaining 10% i

I use Linux, and I used to agree with some of your platitudes, but not any more.

Although you believe that the community isn't trying to hide the flaws, most users didn't compile squat on their machines. They didn't look at the code, and although some are indeed coders, there are now millions of lines of code that change *a lot*. There's the kernel, in many revisions, and there are apps and distro families that change/mutate frequently and not very many people look at the code before they compile it and go Oh! There's a problem there! They may look at best, as a forensic exercise, long after they downloaded a replacement app, but that's about it.

Yes, there are wonderful kernel contributors and many fantastic FOSS sites and apps and distros. Only a handful of organizations try and keep it together-- at all.

"Found and fixed quickly" is largely a myth. Some communities really work hard towards fixing bugs, but there are many platforms and combinations needed to emulate problems. Coders move on, communities split, fork, or just die of boredom. There are no guarantees in either commercial or FOSS software.

And having been hacked hard twice, I can tell you that you can be rooted in moments, your machine hijacked, and unavailable to a user session no matter what OS you use. With a big enough hammer, you can break *anything*. The smugness is unwarranted.

I'm not talking about normal bugs, and I guarantee you the kernel and all core programs are scrutinized to all ends by people looking for vulnerabilities (both malicious and those looking to fix/report them). I don't download and run/compile code from just anywhere, nor do I click on just anything I receive in email or any old link on a web page, and I do take precautions like noscript and addblock on the web. I'm not saying Linux is invulnerable, but it is a hell of a lot harder to get into than the most

And this brings us right back to the crux of it - freedom may not be free, but neither is your 'locked down device' ever going to be secure. We dont make secure devices anymore, we havent for years, the lockdown isnt to prevent software that YOU consider malicious, only to prevent software that the manufacturer (who generally doesnt even consider you a customer) considers malicious, regardless of your opinion. The manufacturer always leaves ways for themselves to get in, they are just locking YOU out. The malware makers then come along and find and exploit the doors the manufacturer left, so these systems wind up being LESS secure than Free systems.

Freedom to tinker isnt only important to the tinkerer - it's important to 'consumers' in general, because todays tinkerer is tomorrows competitor in the marketplace offering something the customer wanted - or alternatively not offering it, because that freedom was taken away and they never had a chance.

Sorry, exchanging a possibility to be infected by malware in a badly maintained open system to the certainty of living full of malwares built in by the manufacturing company is indeed stupidity no matter how much you value your time.

Most people don't really care about being free. They'd rather be safe and feel secure even if it's only an illusion.

Its not true in the slightest; everybody want freedom and privacy, admittedly most do not realise either how much they have given up, or have not noticed it being taken away...and have not sacrificed these things anything as astute as security [that does not make sense anyway ] they have done it for old fashioned *convenience*.

It only the massive marketing campaign by Apple/Microsoft that they fuck you over for your own good. Its not good you being fucked. I find it offensive that you repeat there insane pr

But yes that is true that people want freedom and privacy. However, as computer specialist we are a bit how of touch with the real world meaning of that. Most people are happy to share minute details of their life to anybody interested to hear them. But they want privacy from the people that would use that information in a negative way, or more precisely, they want to be protected from the people that would not follow the "social contract". A bit like how people we

Wrong. Just patently wrong. People care about safety after a host of different attributes, such as: convenience, sex appeal, price, social status, etc...

People don't buy Apple products because they're safe, but because they fit into one of the above mentioned categories. Who would purposely purchase shackles when presented with a "shackle-free" alternative, ninety-nine percent of the (American?) population.*

My favorite science teacher in school told me this, "Life is lazy". Everything wants to do the least amount of work possible. Why would people be any different. I'm not excusing this behavior, just illuminating the cause. Like I tell my students, "If you strive to fit in, you're aiming for the bottom. Be better."

Now, if you had said, "Most people don't really care about being free. They'd rather do the "popular" thing", then I would be inclined to agree with you.

We (people in general) have become "fat and happy" and don't want to be hassled with the responsibility of making our own decisions. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

"Do not go gentle into that good night" -Dylan Thomas

All great minds have railed against the "popular opinion". Why? Because as a people, humans are notoriously unreliable at making good decisions. As individuals, we have made magnificent strides in science, art, literature, etc...

Please, consciously decide against the tyranny of corporate control. They will never have your best interests at heart.

I think it starts in school when the administration ostracises and persecutes people for acting diffrently and encourages "saftey in numbers" and the herd mentality.

We then justify anyone outside the norm might be potentially dangerous and we'd have no idea so we let authority figures sort it out, and they tell us who is dangerous and what is the proper thing to do about it, and inform us when they've done so.

They'd made it clear that challenging the status quo makes you just as much a target as anything else.

The ability to change the status quo and innovate is reserved for leaders, and those in high standng., who we admire and worship for their flagrant disregard for set standards, and ability to walk away unscathed from what would cost us everything. To change the slightest things, we'd need their OK, given the full credit for our ideas, and be thankful we merely be allowed to exist.

The whole point of making use docile is so we are all uncapable of being "upper management", so the positions naturally get filled by insiders.

Almost. The point of not teaching us what they teach those who would lead us is that we would be pissed off if we knew. Even at so-called Christian colleges business classes teach you to be manipulative and deceptive and business ethics classes teach you how not to get in trouble for being such.

You're half right. It's not about avoiding making decisions. It's about being afraid of making a dangerous decision without realizing it. Folks like you and me understand computers. We understand how our actions affect our experience. Most folks don't. And they don't want to. They don't want to think about whether opening that attachment will actually run some app on their machine that installs a keylogger and sends their credit card login information to a server in Croatia. They want their device to work for them, not against them, and as you yourself put it, they are notoriously unreliable at making good decisions about what is or is not a safe action. So for them, the only way to have a modicum of safety and comfort is to have less freedom.

What corporate control does is creates a responsible party that at least ostensibly should be able to make more informed decisions about what is and is not safe than your average non-programmer. This is not saying that it should not be possible for people who know what they are doing and truly understand the risks to get out from under that corporate control—it can be useful, even necessary at times—but rather that systems should be designed in such a way that it is really, really freaking obvious when you stray outside those lines. If you don't have to work at it, then straying outside those bounds becomes second nature, and people begin to take it for granted that what they're doing is safe even when it really isn't.

If you don't leave the decisions to the product designers, who are you going to leave them to? The only alternatives I can think of are:

Cell carriers. They will do everything possible to ensure that your experience is specific to their carrier, that your apps can't come with you, and that you will have to either buy new apps whenever you buy a new phone or pay a subscription fee every month for the privilege of running the Facebook app.

Most people don't really care about being free. They'd rather be safe and feel secure even if it's only an illusion.

That is not true. People are great at discerning reality from illusion, and do not feel "more comfortable" with illusion as protection - many dislike the TSA for example.

But something that is really going wrong in this discussion is that many seem to be thinking "freedom" equals "privacy", or that privacy has anything to do with freedom. The truth is that while people like and enjoy freedom

Unfortunately the App Store which is similar to a locked down APT Repository, offers that safety

The difference between the App Store model and Ubuntu is that on Ubuntu, you don't need to pay a recurring fee just to add a PPA.

here is a spot where I can get stuff and I can trust it. Back in the olden days we could go to a reputable store and buy a box set.

Back in the olden days you weren't cryptographically limited to one store, except in the video game console market. Stores would compete for your business. Likewise in the Android system, both Google Play Store and Amazon Appstore compete for your business.

Given what I've been through recently with Apple on my iPhone (http://www.anderson-net.com/~nathan/apple-broke-my-phone), and also recent stories such as this one (http://www.telecoms.com/54319/apple-vetting-operators-on-lte-network-performance/), I'd have to say, "yup."

WTF? If anything it was shown that the silly monitoring application had the spyware pieces *DISABLED* on iPhones whereas Android phone sellers had it enabled. Google's original bits did not have it, since Google have their own way of tracking users:)

"And therefore they can be herded into giving up their freedom by a combination of convenient features, pressure from institutions and the network effect." Or, perhaps, they judged what they want and what they are giving up and chose something of their own accord because they don't care about the same things in their computing experience that RMS does. Crazy, I know.

Mostly because they can't see what waits them in the end of the road if they keep on this path. RMS has a very good point. Most users would abhor, if they could see a bit ahead, the dystopia companies like Apple and MS want to create where they have absolute control over what we can or cannot do with the devices we buy. If they don't it is mostly because of ignorance.

have absolute control over what we can or cannot do with the devices we buy

I don't think this will happen - another company can swoop in and take the market share of disgruntled users if there are any. The only reason I can see people having to use a device they don't want to use is if they are *mandated* to do so - there's a reason Apple has been so successful in the phone market, and it's not because they have an iron grip on the users' testes.

I am as much for free and open software as the next nerd, but having its spokesman say about potential users that "they can be herded into giving up their freedom by a combination of convenient features, pressure from institutions and the network effect...." is extremely counterproductive. He is admitting that free software is inconvenient, that it isn't going to be supported by your workplace or school, and - what? What the heck is the "network effect"?

The network effect is where you need to use (random example) Skype because everyone else you need to talk to uses Skype, and Skype is not built on open standards in a way which would allow you to use an alternative.

He is just saying that convenient features, and peer and institutions pressure force people into non open standards. He didn't say a thing about all convenient features being exclusive to closed source. Currently Apple has inferior products, with far less convenient features than the competition and still it sells as if it was good, due to it being fashionable and a symbol of status. MS products have mostly infuriating features, but people are used to them and learning new things is inconvenient to many.

And yet, he's absolutely honest and correct. Any marketing spin would be slightly dishonest and manipulative, and he won't stand for that.

Humans are biased to our own detriment. We'll take immediate payoff (the "convenient features") over a bigger long-term benefit (Linux's flexibility). We'll trust recommendations ("pressure") from authorities as being absolute, rather than re-evaluating solutions to find what's best for us. When surrounded by others doing something, we'll assume that we must do the same (allowing the "network effect [wikipedia.org]")

People, especially the current generation, have been indoctrinated to the concept that "privacy" is an outmoded concept, and in some cases that a lack of privacy is the normal, natural order of things. This, of course, is wrong and needs to be corrected before the problems with corporations and governments can be corrected. As always, the free flow of information and education of the masses leads to what's best for people.

Horses**t. Anything I do in the privacy of my home, assuming it leaves no evidence and does not affect or involve anyone else, is private, always has been, and should rightfully continue to be in the future unless I choose to make it public. Anyone who claims otherwise is probably in the business of violating someone's privacy.

See, the difference is that rivers never used to flow uphill, so yes, there's your myth. Privacy did, in fact, have a significant role in our society -- that is not a myth. This was before folks like you grew up and got into the system. The 4th amendment used to mean something. But what it meant (primarily) was that the federal, and pretty much the state, governments had hard limits on them. They no longer do, as SCOTUS has made perfectly clear. So you're right, when you characterize it as "putting the genie back in the bottle" in terms of difficulty. However, you're very wrong when you characterize it as a myth. Vestiges still remain. As they go, there will be some uproar from those who understand the value of what is being lost, and yes, I know, you don't have to tell me -- that won't include you or people like you.

"And therefore they can be herded into giving up their freedom by a combination of convenient features, pressure from institutions and the network effect."

Convenient features, such as stuff actually working well and doing what it's supposed to without needing tinkering.
Pressure from institutions and network effect, aka '90% of my peers use the same software, it works well for our needs and it would be a major undertaking for them to migrate just to satisfy my whims'.

I wonder what kind of car Stallman drives. Seriously. Does he update the firmware controlling the engine timing and fuel injectors?

What's that? The car manufacturers have digitally handcuffed him so that he can't go mucking around with things? Oh - it must be a safety issue. OK, well, surely he can update the firmware for other things in his car, such as the radio display?

People aren't hearded in to giving up their freedoms. There are certain freedoms that those people just don't *need* to begin with. My mother, who has an iPhone, isn't handcuffed - if anything, the device liberates her into using technology that she wouldn't otherwise use in in the modern world.

There are products across the spectrum that address the balance between usable and the freedom to do whatever you'd like. Just because manufacturers lock down their devices doesn't mean there's not a suitable audience that doesn't benefit...

Sure they are. All the companies with power have to do is push tech in a certain direction and ensure that what options are made available serve their purposes. Most people will go along without asking any questions, in many cases because they don't know what questions to ask.

There are certain freedoms that those people just don't *need* to begin with.

Says who? I'm sure a justification can be made to suggest you don't *need* any freedom you have.

My mother, who has an iPhone, isn't handcuffed - if anything, the device liberates her into using technology that she wouldn't otherwise use in in the modern world.

That she doesn't venture far enough to reach the fence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Suggesting that the fence must exist for it to be usable for her is an unfounded argument so, please, don't go there as so many do.

There are products across the spectrum that address the balance between usable and the freedom to do whatever you'd like.

Not really. All I've seen is an increase in lock down. More restrictions, not fewer.

Just because manufacturers lock down their devices doesn't mean there's not a suitable audience that doesn't benefit.

Lock down that puts the end-user perpetually on the outside of the security model is never intended to benefit the audience except may be as an unintentional side effect.

I wonder what kind of car Stallman drives. Seriously. Does he update the firmware controlling the engine timing and fuel injectors?

Say what you will of Stallman, but the guy eats his dog food. He uses non-free software/hardware/etc when free alternatives are not available, but he is VERY tolerant of inconvenience when it will allow him to substitute something free. He is largely free of proprietary software, and I'm sure he's gotten quite far on the hardware front. I'm sure when he buys a new car that the sorts of things you mention are considerations for him, and if riding in the rain on a moped would get him closer to an all-FOSS world he'd probably do it.

He also writes software, though I suspect not as much as he used to. So, he isn't just demanding that others write his software for him.

Does he represent an extreme? Sure. However, he is actually reasonably practical about his beliefs. He doesn't insist on swimming across the Atlantic because all the planes and ships have proprietary ECUs.

iOS is certainly more tied down than OS X but It's certainly not like phones were open before and he should be grateful Apple removed their DRM from their music and open sourced their coded to make sure he could play his media everywhere. But most importantly, I'll take the walled garden over the mess that is the play store which effectively makes me a slave to anti-virus/malware software instead of Apple.

Stallman is a good guy to have around (despite the fact he borders on crazy) but if he think iOS is so bad he's more than welcome to come up with a better alternative. Google hasn't so the opportunity is there.

Wether you're for or against things like copyrights, or the fact that it's been twisted and corrupted way beyond the original goal, you need to acknowledge that there's two kinds of files. The ones you create and the ones you buy. This means there is a difference between your property vs the property of other people.

As far as your own files are concerned, in my opinion Apple is not a bad guy, far from it.

Apple supports a lot of formats, some of them licensed and others completely open:- Screen captures are in 32-bit PNG- iCal supports regular.ical files- Mail supports regular pop3 accounts- Address Book supports vCard files- iTunes supports AIFF, WAV, MP3, AAC, MPEG-4 and H.264 and their own proprietary Apple Lossless format- Keynote has its own proprietary format but can export to Quicktime, Microsoft PowerPoint, PDF, images in JPEG/PNG/TIFF, Flash, HTML and even a format for iPods.- Pages has its own proprietary format but can export to PDF, Microsoft Word, RTF and plain text.- Numbers has its own proprietary format but can export to PDF, Microsoft Excel and plain CSV text with three choices of text encoding, one of them being UTF-8.- iChat supports AIM, Jabber and Google Talk.- Preview supports a shitload of formats [wikipedia.org]- Any program that can print can create a PDF file

Last week I just discovered that you can even Quick Look a Collada file and rotate the object while still in Quick Look mode, for crying out loud.

Some people will bitch that Apple doesn't support OGG Vorbis or OGG Theora, so let me the 1000th to bitch that such stupid names were bound to fail at grabbing any sensible marketshare. The idiots who thought of those names should be forced to watch this Simpsons episode [wikipedia.org] every day for a year.

In contrast, Microsoft created BMP at a time when there was already at least 10+ graphic formats available, WAV at a time when there was at least 3+ audio formats available and AVI at a time when there was at least 2+ video formats available.

If there's someone who's disrupting your abilities to quit their platforms by chaining down your own documents, it's Microsoft a hell of a lot more than it is Apple.

... is that handcuffs do nothing but restrain you. An iPhone restrains you in certain ways but it also enables a whole lot of other things. It's all about trade-offs.

It's the difference between an actual prison, and a prison where you can eat delicious food, see your friends, travel to some extent, etc etc etc., versus living "free" in the woods.

Furthermore, they aren't "handcuffs" in that I can get out of them. I might lose some stuff, but then again, I might not -- it all depends on what I'm doing and how. As it happens, there is nothing on my iPhone that I a) care about and b) couldn't easily move to another system. So depending on who you are, they may not be handcuffs at all.

Finally, it's a continuum. There's a difference between "handcuffs" and "oh well, I guess I can't watch this movie I bought in iTunes anymore because I have an Android phone now." I gain nothing from some pursuit of absolute theoretical perfection. Same thing with security: what do I gain by reading SSL certificates, if I'm going to give my credit card to a 19-year-old in a restaurant to take out of my sight for five minutes the next day? "Those who would trade...", yeah yeah yeah. It is impossible to live a life that is perfect in every way. Have you ever tripped? Well then, why don't you just stare at your feet for every single step you take in all of life? Oh, because the benefits of looking around every hour of every day outweigh tripping on things a couple times a year.

The bigger problem with cell phones, really, are the odious terms from the telcos, like AT&T selling me a fixed number of bytes and then charging extra depending on what I want to do with them. Or requiring that all smartphones have data plans in the first place, and then making the "entry level" plans more and more expensive each year.

Just finished reading the comments, thank you all, most insightful in understanding the demographics of/. today: rage comic addicts with a depressingly shallow perspective on free software and that would gladly trade their siblings for the next iShiny and that think that saying inanity like "Well, freedom isn't important if the product is usable" is anything more than a mediocre platitude. Reading Computer Shopper adverts was more challenging that this drivel, "Oh, I don't mind that I don't own the software or even know what they do with my data because it is soooo convenient lol this RMS guy is so out of it!".

You can't liberate people by forcing, or coercing them, into thinking the same way that you do. People who buy closed systems do so of their own free will, for reasons that might be more important to them they are to you. They do it in spite of reasons that may be more important to you than they are to them. True liberty is about respecting the choices of others, and allowing everyone access to a variety of options so that they may choose which is most suitable for them. If you want people to choose your option, make it as attractive to them as the options presented by the people you oppose. Don't blame others for presenting options that you disagree with.

Stallman's not a person I can take seriously when he talks about liberty, for one simple reason:

He's as much a control freak as the MPAA and RIAA are.

The GPLv3 is fundamentally in the same category as DRM; it's there to prohibit you from doing things with something that the author doesn't want you to do. The purpose is not to maximize freedom; it's to maximize one very narrow subset of freedoms, while prohibiting whole classes of others. And the more aggressive and draconian terms, coupled with the ever more elaborate attempts to prevent people from violating the spirit of the law, come down to the same thing that's wrong with the DMCA: You cannot make ethics happen by force. All you can do is replace any consideration of the ethics with a focus on the legal limits.

When I give code away, I give it away. I do not sit around making elaborate rules for how it can be used. I let people make their own calls. That's liberty. Liberty does include the possibility that other people will do things you don't appreciate, such as not choosing to also give things away or give people free reign with their stuff. Okay, fine.

But once people start making elaborate and complicated legal terms for things, which are designed to try to prevent all sort of things they don't like, and maybe they prevent a few things which coulda been okay but whatever... I don't care whether it's the RIAA or the FSF. It's about control, not liberty, and I don't like it.

Yes, and it's full of an incomprehensible jumble of hundreds of apps that do the same thing, with a distinct lack of the super-common apps that most people (and the computer kid down the street) know how to use already.

Yes, and it's full of an incomprehensible jumble of hundreds of apps that do the same thing, with a distinct lack of the super-common apps that most people (and the computer kid down the street) know how to use already.

Just to clarify, are you talking about Apples app store, the ubuntu app store, or a 3rd app store like the google play app store or the amazon app store or ?

If Ford welded hoods shut and used their money and power as a multinational megacorp plus all the force and power of the federal government to hunt you down like a dog and destroy you if you dared to open the hood of "your" car

What are you talking about? Many engineering students make modifications to vehicles, purely for pleasure.

The issue is simple:

If I WANT to tinker, *I CAN*.

THAT is the freedom being discussed here. I can't just decide one day that I am dissastisfied with the windows file copy dialog box's estimated time to completion algorithm, bust open the source code, and tinker on it.

I *CAN* do that on linux. (Moreover, if my reimplemetation is superior, the linux community eagerly wants my changes!)

If I *want* to modify my fuel injection system on my vehicle, I can. The hood isn't welded shut, and the ECM isn't designed to kill itself when tampered with. Compare that with say, an xbox360 with efuses, and tamper tape.

Stallman is definately a crackpot in a large number of ways. (Harvesting fresh footfungus in front of an audience and all that..) however, arguing about this level of freedom, even if people choose not to make use of that freedom, is definately to the betterment of mankind, and should be supported.

But that's a freedom most of the population couldn't care less about. Let's say I was making a fuss, because I couldn't get the InDesign data for all the books I own, and those books were evil, because they were taking away the freedom to design them in a more legible and typographically sound way. You couldn't care less, but honestly I sometimes don't even consider reading something that is designed just too badly, since I am a typography/design geek. But you might not give a flying f*ck about these things.
Sometimes things you consider extremely important are just totally irrelevant to others.

I mean everyone should know how to do all the things needed to keep their car running.

I have a 15 year old domestic car with about 140K miles and (un-)fortunately "tinkering with the car" means pretty much changing the oil every quarter and checking/replacing certain other fluids roughly annually.

hours and hours... per decade?

Also there's no optimization left. In my grandfather's time cars were so poorly engineered that you could slap on a higher flow muffler and gain 75 HP and adjust the "points" every weekend to regain 10 HP lost over the course of the week or whatever. Th

Those optimization failures are history other than the most extreme hot-rodders. All thats left is boring maintenance, and theres not much of it.

You hit the nail on the head. I'm one of the "grandfathers" you speak of, been driving (legally) since 1978, I've still got a "timing gun" somewhere in the garage. One minor nitpick, you forgot the simplest modification, on many older cars a foxtail tied to the aerial will give you an extra 10mph.

Why put him in a straightjacket? Crowds gather to listen to him rant and rave -- does that bother you? Why not let him opine for hours until he's hoarse if it fits his fancy?

but the real problem with the "Just run Linux" solution is that non-Computer Science people want to do things like answer e-mail, write correspondence, and buy software from the store that has a nice, easy installer.

I'm sorry, I didn't see anywhere in this actual article where he urges people to "Just run Linux" as you quoted, could you help me find it here? Whether or not he rambles about how people should use Linux seems a separate point from his (in my opinion) valid criticisms of Apple, wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure why you say "they aren't doing MORE than what everyone else in the industry is doing." They were one of the (if *not* THE) first to come up with a general computing platform that has a digital distribution mechanism for client apps full of DRM *that happens to be the only way to install third-party software on the platform*. By Apple's mandate, there is no sanctioned sideloading of apps. And jailbreaking/rooting doesn't count because that's simply people exploiting security holes in the system that Apple constructed to keep non-App Store apps off the platform.

Sure, everybody else is doing it now, but Apple pioneered that trend. The others followed suit after they saw the success of their platform.

Even if you want to develop a little utility of your own to run on your own device and not sell or distribute to anyone else, you *still* have to pay Apple $99/year for the privilege of loading *your own* software on *your own* device.

They were one of the (if *not* THE) first to come up with a general computing platform that has a digital distribution mechanism for client apps full of DRM *that happens to be the only way to install third-party software on the platform*

Well, if you consider extending it to a "general computing platform" as their innovation. Consoles have been locked down for years, they haven't been exclusively digital distribution but including physical distribution equally full of DRM they've been doing it since the NES in 1983 and they've been constantly expanding their functionality towards browsing, media playback and media center functionality and other general computing. Apple caught them blindsided moving via smart phones to tablets they were hard

I get the impression he hates on Apple because it's popular to hate on them in particular

RMS doing something becuse it's popular? Huh? Are we discussing the same RMS?

the real problem with the "Just run Linux" solution is that non-Computer Science people want to do things like answer e-mail, write correspondence, and buy software from the store that has a nice, easy installer

When will this lie end? Modern distros are far more useable than Windows, and possibly Apples as well (I wouldn't know). The only thing you got right was the "buy software" part. You don't buy software with Linux, you download it from the distro's repository. It takes one click and no reboots.

Since I am not drinking the Apple hate-eraid, I imagine I will be modded into oblivion.

I get the impression he hates on Apple because it's popular to hate on them in particular

I get the impression that you hate on RMS because it is popular to hate on him.

Seriously though, why would RMS follow the crowd when it comes to which companies to criticize? He has always criticized companies for creating proprietary platforms and imposing proprietary licenses on their users, and Apple does both. In his view, Apple is the most serious offender; I disagree with him, but to claim that he is just following the crowd here is way off base.

the real problem with the "Just run Linux" solution is that non-Computer Science people want to do things like answer e-mail, write correspondence

Right. As if your grandmother would do anything differently when encountering problems under Linux than under Windows -- either she'd ignore it (like my parents do with their infinite number of browser toolbars bogging down their systems), or she'd come to you for help. Most people are entirely incapable of fixing problems under either Windows or OS X, as exemplified by the infinite number of hits you get when googling "repair permissions", the universal remedy for all Mac problems (which are remarkably frequent for a faultless system) that never ever works, suggested by clueless idiots to helpless computer illiterate users every day.

In the end, most users just blame themselves for their computer problems: after all, they have chosen not to learn how the system works. Perhaps that seems less irresponsible with proprietary consumer software, a sort of feel-better-factor, but don't pretend your average computer user is capable of fixing problems under Windows or OS X.

"I don't hate Linux, I really like it actually. I use it for servers and tinkering workstations all the time"I was being facetious. RMS pointed out some really great reasons why apple is doing bad things. you accused him of hating apple because its cool to do so, when RMS presented some valid arguments."But every time I've tried to use it for real work - some huge glitch keeps me from making the switch over, something doesn't work as advertised, or something just gets depreciated without a replacement."Funn

ITS NOT JUST A PHONE. It is a pocket computer with more storage and horsepower THEN MY COLLEGE IRC NODE/WAREZ SITE, a plethora of sensors and its backdoored all to hell. It is a phenomenally powerful device, and you would reduce it to voice comms and fart apps. No one is saying we dont want secure devices, only that we should be able to take off the restrictions if we choose as intelligent human beings.

i'd say the free software movement is suffering from a "last mile" problem.

but i guess that depends on what the intent of the movement is, exactly? dominate every compute platform?

Or at least provide a usable, widely available alternative to every non-free compute platform. For example, Xubuntu is the alternative to Windows, Android is the alternative to iOS, and in April 2013, Ouya will be the alternative to Wii U.